Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the call is project-scoped, returns the project identity, creates a new EDL version, and undoes only one cut without affecting others. It does not mention potential side effects like reversibility or failure modes, but it discloses the key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The scoping constraint is front-loaded, and the action is stated clearly in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the purpose and side effect (new EDL version) but leaves parameter details (start/end semantics, snap_to_words) unexplained. There is no output schema, so the return value is only vaguely mentioned ('returns the project identity'). For a tool with four parameters, three of which lack schema descriptions, this is a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only project_id has a description). The description says 'source-time range,' which implies start and end are time boundaries, but it does not specify units, inclusivity, or the meaning of snap_to_words. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but does not fully compensate for the three undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Add a previously-cut source-time range back into the keep set (undo one cut without touching the rest).' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by explicitly being the inverse of a cut operation. The PROJECT-SCOPED note also clarifies its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to undo a specific cut while leaving the rest of the edit intact. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like cut_range or keep_segments.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.